The Preclusion of Rebellion in Never Let Me Go
By Michael Mohr, Mikkel Kramme Abildtoft & Christopher Jon Andersen
1. Semester Project HIB 2008, Group 3B – Supervised by Ebbe Klitgaard
4. The Intent & Effects of Hailsham & Its Guardians ................................................. 31
The Preclusion of Rebellion in Never Let Me Go
4.1. The Purpose of Hailsham................................................................................ 31
By Christopher Jon Andersen, Mikkel Kramme Abildtoft & Michael Mohr
4.2. Miss Lucy’s Moral Quarrel .............................................................................. 32
Table of Contents
4.2.1. The Adverse Effects of Miss Lucy’s Articulations ...................................... 33
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Problem Formulation ....................................................................................... 5
1.1.1. Cardinal Question ....................................................................................... 5
1.1.2. Sub-Questions ............................................................................................ 5
2. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Delimitation ..................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1. Why Laclau & Mouffe? ............................................................................... 7
2.2. Our Application of Discourse Theory ................................................................ 8
2.2.1. Fundamental Terms ................................................................................... 9
2.2.2. Fowler’s Linguistic Checklist ..................................................................... 10
2.2.3. The Obstacle of Never let Me Go’s Narrator & Narratee .......................... 11
3. Ascertaining the Clone-Discourse ......................................................................... 14
4.3. The Meeting With Madame & Miss Emily ...................................................... 36
4.4. Miss Emily vs. Miss Lucy ................................................................................. 37
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 41
6. Appendix .............................................................................................................. 43
6.1. Bibliography ................................................................................................... 43
6.2. Dimension Anchoring ..................................................................................... 43
6.3. Additional Requirements................................................................................ 44
6.3.1. Abstract .................................................................................................... 44
6.3.2. Summary in Danish................................................................................... 44
6.3.3. The Two Year Progression Frame ............................................................. 45
6.4. Terminology ................................................................................................... 47
6.5 Wikipedia Summary of the Novel .................................................................... 47
3.0.1. The Interpellation of the Students............................................................ 15
3.0.2. The Hegemonic Denial of Antagonisms .................................................... 17
3.1. The Characters in Relation to the Clone-Discourse ......................................... 20
3.1.1. Kathy’s Curiosity & Reclusion ................................................................... 21
3.1.2. Tommy’s Rage .......................................................................................... 22
3.1.3. Ruth’s Aspiration ...................................................................................... 24
3.2. The Students’ Agency: The Desire for Something Else .................................... 26
3.2.1. The Notion of Possibles ............................................................................ 27
3.2.2. The Moments of Cruelty........................................................................... 27
3.2.3. The Recurring Rumor of Deferrals ............................................................ 29
Note to Reader
Due to the confines of our word limit, we operate
with a presumption that the reader has a certain
degree of intimacy with the novel. To combat any
deficiencies this may create, we have included a
summary and a terminology of the novel’s rather
peculiar jargon in the appendix. We strongly advise
that you refer to these if you are unfamiliar with
the novel. Enjoy your reading.
3.3 Sub-Conclusion................................................................................................ 30
1
2
1. Introduction
and mannerisms, but also permitted autonomous and non-restricted movement
Midway through this project, the initial 8-man group we were part of split into two
after leaving their initial home, Hailsham. They are even expected to read complex
distinct groups as we were unable to adequately converge the two different
works of literature and philosophy by authors as poignant and relevant as Kafka and
perspectives with which we were operating in our analysis of Kazuo Ishiguro’s 2005
Voltaire. The final straw is the fact that the students not just wishfully dream about,
novel Never Let Me Go1. In saying so, we are not looking for extenuating circum-
but also discuss the possibilities of the ‘normal’ world. Several times, the novel gives
stances, but rather to highlight that NLMG is a book that reaches its level of brillian-
us unsubtle hints that the students desire another ‘fate’, e.g. The Great Escape being
ce not due to the quality of the answers it provides, but the quality of the questions
one of their favorite movies (Ishiguro, 99). In fact, nothing about the novel’s setting
it asks. The novel, which reads as an autobiography told by the protagonist Kathy H,
resembles your typical dystopian world. We are not dealing with anything as expli-
details her and her friends’ lives as students – clones, that is – which have been bred
citly perverted as The World State or Oceania, but what can be described as an anal-
and raised in a pseudo-sci-fi boarding school environment by a society that regards
ogous England; you could even go so far as to call it idyllic. It is a world devoid of
them as products, not humans, with the sole intent of farming their organs.
intricate sci-fi devices, Soma, sleep-learning, and Big Brother, and yet still, it stands
in contraposition to not only The Island, but also Brave New World and 1984.
Our own experiences have shown that immediately upon reading a summary as the
one above, one might have a suspicion that the book details events unfolding before
After having read the novel, we were left not only feeling frustrated, but also
and after the protagonist and her fellow students rebel against their gruesome fate.
desiring a reason, something which one comes to regard as a deus ex machina, to
As such, the book seemingly shares most of its major plot points, minus the
explain the passive acceptance displayed by the main characters. Yet, the novel
explosions, with the 2005 Michael Bay movie The Island wherein the protagonists
never provides one. Resultingly, it is alluring to reach the same conclusion as the
rebel as soon as they realize the fate planned for them. But contrary to these expec-
society the students live in, i.e. that the students do not partake in human nature;
tations, the main characters of NLMG never challenge society present in the novel.
they are not humans, just uncanny imitations. However, if one is to temporarily
As such, their actions or rather lack thereof, radically diverge not only from those ta-
disregard this possibility, we are left with the placement of the responsibility for the
ken by the protagonists of The Island, but also from the common-held belief that it
lack of rebellion, as the only outlet for the unavoidable frustration felt after reading
is human nature to rebel, almost per automatism, against injustice of the magnitude
the book. We have now reached the premise of the argument that eventually
present in NLMG. The lack of rebellion grows even more baffling when you realize
resulted in the division of our original group. For although there is little discussion
that the students’ fatalistic acceptance of their inhuman fate happens in spite of the
about the wrongness permeating the society present in the novel, the matter of
fact that they are not only indistinguishable from non-clones in both appearances
whether or not the nature of this society precludes rebellion as an option at all), or if
the responsibility ultimately falls on the feet of the students themselves (thereby
1
making the lack of rebellion a matter of choice), is heavily debatable.
Henceforth also abbreviated as NLMG.
3
4
1.1. Problem Formulation
The remainders of us were more interested in the problematics detailed in the
We will utilize Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory2 as literary
introduction, and thus ruled out dealing directly with other interesting topics such
theory for an account of how the students’ lack of rebellion and explicit malcontent
as cloning ethics and how NLMG belies the prototypical dystopian narrative. We
can be understood as consistent with them being humans. In doing so, we will
envisioned a project shaped as a dialectical discussion of these problematics
attempt to answer the following questions.
between two conflicting viewpoints on what constitutes human nature. As evident,
one of these approaches was Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, while as hinted
1.1.1. Cardinal Question
in the introduction, the other was existentialism. Due to the dialectical nature of the
• How can you argue that the discourse, which the society of NLMG interpellate
the students with, precludes rebellion on their part?
project, we further divided the group into two sub-groups, each one dealing with
one of the two approaches to ‘reading’ the novel. Unfortunately, it later became
clear that we would be unable to adequately synthesize the two radically different
1.1.2. Sub-Questions
• From this perspective, how are the human subject and its agency inherently
points of view within the preset confines of the project. Consequentially, the group
split along the lines of the sub-groups. As a natural result thereof, we will not en-
defined in Never Let Me Go?
gage in an existentialistic reading of the novel.
• Why do the apparent attempts to humanize the students by the guardians
Miss Emily and Miss Lucy fail?
However, by having attempt two different readings of the novel simply to see them
yield two unconvergable results, we have learned the lesson that readings of novels
can be mutually exclusive, thereby rendering a definitive objective reading impossib-
2. Methodology
le. With this realization, we also acknowledge that by applying discourse theory to
2.1. Delimitation
In order to bridge the gap that admittedly exists between the introduction and the
NLMG we will not obtain the true ‘meaning’ of the novel. In connection, it is note-
problem formulation, it is important to understand how our delimitation process
worthy that we will not discuss or incorporate Ishiguro as a person in our reading of
unfolded. At the very conception of the project, we were 14 students interested in
the novel. Finally, we want to explicate that although we are proponents of a read-
writing a project about Never Let Me Go. The first division of the student pool was
ing of NLMG which utilize discourse theory, and believe such a reading to be poig-
relatively unproblematic, as 6 decided to write a project about the narrative techni-
nant, it is as much our job to find discrepancies between the novel and discourse
ques employed in the novel – a matter which we will later discuss briefly in relation
theory, as it is to find correlations. We are, after all, dealing with a fictional world in
to the hindrance they pose in relation to a discourse analysis of the novel.
which Newtonian physics could be abolished at the blink of an eye. What we are
after, is not a critique of discourse theory based on the fictional events in the novel,
2
but a possible explanation – not the explanation – for why the clones do not rebel.
Hereafter, whenever we refer to “discourse theory” we mean Laclau and Mouffe’s.
5
6
2.1.1. Why Laclau & Mouffe?
the students of NLMG are shielded from other such possible logics and
Until now, we have left it unanswered why we specifically chose Laclau & Mouffe’s
thereby live in a microcosm wherein discourse is the only tangible logic,
discourse theory at the expense of several other prominent theories of discourse.
Laclau & Mouffe allows us a more complete analysis (P&J, 18-21).
The short answer would be that we intuitively felt a correlation between discourse
theory’s answers and NLMG’s questions, but that undoubtedly will not suffice. The
• Discourse theory’s definition of discourse equates it with ideology in its
lengthy answer, which has several facets, is one that will be unraveled during the re-
Althusserian sense. The subject is as such interpellated by discourse and
port, so providing it here would be pleonastic. However, we will now quickly detail
constituted by it (P&J, 16-18).
the process by which we came to favor discourse theory and the key reasons for
• Discourse theory’s enlistment of Gramsci’s notion of hegemony is the most
doing so. As the discussion about the placement of responsibility for the lack of
fully fledged and applicable to the novel (P&J, 30-40, 47-49).
rebellion came to be the focus of our 8-man group, we needed a philosophical
foundation for each of the two distinct points of view. Due to pre-existing know-
• In later works, Laclau incorporates Lacan’s psychoanalysis to account for the
ledge of the sentiments about human nature generally expressed by the post-
psychological mechanisms that catalyze investment in discourses (P&J, 113).
structuralist proponents of the various discourse theories, we decided to delve into
this direction. The decision to settle on Laclau & Mouffe’s discourse theory was
2.2. Our Application of Discourse Theory
Since Laclau & Mouffe derives their discourse theory on the convergence of several
influenced by the following key points, all of which will be elaborated upon later:
directions within philosophy and linguistics, it is at once classifiable as social
• Discourse theory’s analytical focus is abstract and can therefore overcome the
hindrance that NLMG’s obfuscating narrator and narratee poses. Critical
discourse analysis on the other hand, for example, requires its “text” to be in
its pure unbiased, uninterpreted form (see 2.2.3) (Philips and Jørgensen, 2021, Chapter 5)3. As this could be seen as a shortcoming, we will supplement
with Fowler’s Linguistic Checklist when it’s applicable (see 2.2.2. & 2.2.3.).
constructionistic, post-structuralistic and post-Marxist. As a consequence, even a
quick sketch of its theoretical foundation would be cumbersome. Recognizing this,
we will keep our theoretical introduction to a minimum, while also preferring to
introduce the more advanced terms as they become pertinent to our analysis.
Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that we are operating with Laclau &
Mouffe’s theory as presented by Louise Philips and Marianne W. Jørgensen4, as such
• Discourse theory holds that discourse is the only constitutive logic at play in
the social. Other proposed logics are thus seen as discursively constituted. As
we will also utilize a few terms consistent with discourse theory, but introduced by
Philips and Jørgensen in their book Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method.
4
3
This is mainly due to the rather inaccessible and demanding nature of Laclau & Mouffe’s work
which requires intimate of its different philosophical components.
Henceforth this will be quoted as (P&J) instead of the cumbersome (Philips and Jørgensen).
7
8
2.2.1. Fundamental Terms
Whenever two or more discourses are engaged in a struggle over meaning they are
After the term “discourse” gained its current prominence, it has developed into
said to have entered into an antagonism. These struggles normally pertain to the
being a diffuse academic buzzword which is used far more than it is explained. With
meaning of floating signifiers, signs who are particularly privy to multiple
discourse, one can mean a jargon, a discussion, or an ideological worldview. It is the
interpretations, and whose closure is pertinent to the overall structure of the
latter of these that most closely fixates the understanding of discourse Laclau and
discourse (P&J, 28). The investigation of these struggles is one the main analytical
Mouffe lay out in Hegemony & Socialist Strategy (1985). They build their discourse
focuses of Laclau & Mouffe; another is the uncovering of hegemonies. Hegemony is
theory on the structural linguist Saussure’s semiotics which saw an underlying
best explained as “[…] the organization of content – the processes through which
structure as the producer of meaning for all signs, each sign ascertaining its meaning
subordinated form of consciousness are constructed without recourse to violence or
from its differential position in the structure (P&J, 8-12). Where Laclau & Mouffe
coercion” (P&J, 32). Hegemony is the result of sedimented articulations, organi-
differ with Saussure, is in the existence of several structures, each of which is called
zations of meaning which have been left unchallenged long enough to be considered
a discourse. These contingent structures interpellate the individual through social
natural. Hence hegemony can be construed as the opposite of deconstruction, as it
processes to subjugate it to its inherent organization of meaning. Thus Laclau &
conceals the contingent structure in contrast to exposing it (P&J, 47-49).
Mouffe’s discourse is similar to Louis Althusser’s notion of ideology (P&J, 18):
2.2.2. Fowler’s Linguistic Checklist
“Althusser defines ideology as a system of representations that masks our true
We have chosen to supplement our application of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
relations to one another in society by constructing imaginary relations between
theory with Roger Fowler’s5 Linguistic Checklist (Fowler 1985). The Linguistic
people and between them and the social formation” (Philips and Jørgensen, 15)
Checklist is a set of tools based on critical discourse analysis. Common to most tools
In accordance with equation of discourse with ideology, discourse inherently at-
used for critical discourse analysis, including The Linguistic Checklist, is the fact that
tempts to close the meaning of different polysemic signs, elements, so they become
in order to apply it, one needs text in as pure a form as possible, e.g. direct speech, a
moments, unambiguous signs whose meaning have been closed by a particular dis-
transcript or a precise recap of what was said word by word. This imposes some
course. This is done with what Laclau & Mouffe call articulations:
natural limits on the areas of NLMG in which we can utilize the Linguistic Checklist
(see 2.2.3.), but it does allow us to take a very close look at certain poignant
“[We] call articulation any practice establishing a relation among elements such
articulations and analyze them word for word – something the more abstract theory
that their identity is modified as a result of the articulatory practice. The structured
of Laclau & Mouffe does not (see 2.1.1. and 2.2.1.).
totality resulting from the articulatory practice, we will call discourse.” (P&J, 26)
As such, pretty much any thinkable action is an articulation, as they reproduce or
challenge the existing discourses with their embedded meaning (P&J, 27).
9
5
Roger Fowler is a Professor of English and Linguistics at the Modern School of Language and
European Studies and has written several books regarding textual analysis.
10
As such, The Linguistic Checklist serves us as a means to compensate for the lack of
To clarify why this is the case, and how we intend to overcome these obstacles, we
critical discourse analysis in the theories formulated by Laclau & Mouffe. However,
need to detail the narrative techniques employed in the novel. As previously
with our focus remaining on their theory, Fowler’s terms6 will not be applied as is.
mentioned, NLMG is narrated in retrospective from a first-person perspective by the
Instead, it will be used as a means of analyzing key articulations in the text, getting
protagonist Kathy H. The narration takes the form of a dramatic monologue (a
us to the core of what is being said, thus uncovering how language is used to show
pseudo-dialogue) between Kathy and an unidentified listener, who never speaks,
or hide specific meanings. The outcome of our application of Fowler’s theories will
but whom Kathy acknowledges, addresses and justifies herself to:
then be related to the theories of Laclau & Mouffe. As such, The Linguistic Checklist
will serve as a stepping stone, a tool to uncover meaning – meaning which will
“Anyway, I’m not making any big claims for myself. I know carers, working now,
who are just as good and don’t get half the credit. If you’re one of them, I can
afterwards be used in the context of Laclau & Mouffe.
understand how you might get resentful – about my bedsit, my car, above all, the
This utilization of the Linguistic Checklist will mainly focus on syntax. In introducing
way I get to pick and chose who I look after. And I’m a Hailsham student – which is
the conception of syntax, Fowler formulates the following: “Traditional stylistics
enough by itself sometimes to get peoples backs up” (Ishiguro, 3-4)
assumes that alternative syntactic phrasings are available to express essentially the
As Jonathan Culler notes (Culler, 87), a narrator’s audience is named the narratee.
same meaning, with perhaps minor but stylistically significant variations of focus,
Regardless of whether or not this narratee is explicitly identified, the narrative
perspective, or emphasis.” (Fowler, 70). This suggests that meticulous syntactic
implicitly constructs an audience by what its narration presumes and what it ex-
construction of sentences allows an addresser to formulate the same meaning with
plains. The characterization of the narratee in NLMG is one of the main obstacles
different angles or perspective – for example, careful use of syntactic construction
facing us. In the above quote which typifies the relationship between Kathy and her
can be used to direct the addressee’s focus where the addresser wants it, away from
narratee, it is evident that Kathy speaks to a fellow clone, albeit one without a
where the addresser doesn’t want it, or even to delete agents who the addresser
Hailsham background. Unfortunately, the concrete consequence of this is that Kathy
wants to hide. But it also entails that the opposite can be the result; careless formu-
refrains from detailing the experiences shared by all clones, e.g. the carer-courses
lation can result in effects adverse to the addresser’s intentions, as we will see in 4.
(Ishiguro, 202-203), and only details her experiences pertaining specifically to
Hailsham and the Cottages. While this might be seen as a smart move on Ishiguro’s
2.2.3. The Obstacle of Never let Me Go’s Narrator & Narratee
The striking exclusion of rebellion not only belies the conventional pattern of the
dystopian narrative, but as mentioned in 2.1.1 also result in a hindrance with
behalf, as it forces the reader to identify with the clones (Puchner, 46) and
circumvents the need to mention meticulously conjured specifics that has to be
believable, it has severe ramifications for us: We are quite simply robbed of
regards to the application of discourse theory on the novel.
information pertaining to most of the pivotal articulations that not just interpellate
6
We will introduce the specific terms of the Linguistic Checklist as they are utilized in our analysis.
11
the students with the clone-discourse, but also those that continually reshape it.
12
This lack of complete material is not the only issue facing us, as the nature of the
structure affect our efforts to utilize discourse theory in a manner suitable to the
material we do have is in itself problematic due to the nature of the narrator. The
novel and its fictive nature. The problem is that the material we have at hand is in-
problem is two-sided, first of which is the lack of an explicit Verfremdungseffekt.
adequate if we were to take a traditional discursive analytical approach to the novel.
Certainly, the uncanny similarities between the clones’ lives and the life of the
average reader means that the novel achieves the alienation of a Verfremdungseffekt (Puchner, 36, 48), but this kind of Verfremdungseffekt is of no use for
us, and on the contrary poses an obstacle. What is lacking is distance: In the typical
dystopian narrative events (articulations) are focalized through the eyes of a character that is or becomes external to the society, e.g. Winston Smith in 1984. As
such, we are given, if not an objective account of the workings of the dystopian
world, then something descriptive that approximates it. Kathy on the other hand, is
subject to the dystopian machinations and can therefore only provide us with a
Not only are we dealing with incomplete material, but many of the highly significant
articulations present in the novel are obfuscated not just by the aforementioned
problems, but the limitations of memory and hearsay. Tommy’s first talk with Miss
Emily (Ishiguro, 26-31), for example, is hearsay presented in a discussion with
Tommy who has an admittedly shaky recollection of the poignant encounter. Even
the ‘text’ of Miss Lucy’s outburst at the pavilion which is adequately presented by
Kathy, is drawn into question by the differing recollection of other students
(Ishiguro, 79-82). However, certain of the most poignant articulations are in an
adequate state and will be analyzed with the help of Fowler’s Linguistic Checklist.
limited subjective account. A fitting allegory would be that of a prisoner who is at all
times constricted to a solitary cell. No matter how much of an objective and
3. Ascertaining the Clone-Discourse
intelligent mind, he would be incapable of accurately and fully describing the
As a consequence of what we detailed in 2.2.3, we cannot take the most obvious
workings of the prison that lies beyond the confines of his cell.
route in our analysis of NLMG, which would have been to begin with a complete
This lets us segue to the second part of the problem, for there is something reliably
unreliable7 about Kathy as a narrator. As evident in the quote above, she often feels
the need to justify not only herself but also her story-telling decisions (Ishiguro,
138), while at the same time questioning and analyzing the events of her life (Ishigu-
account of the clone-discourse’s specific make and structure. As a result we are
forced to conduct a bit of literary forensics work, in an effort to piece together a
sensible account of how, and by what measures, the clone-discourse arrest the
freedom of the students, in particular the main characters.
ro, 242), in true autobiographical form she’s attempting to present her life as cohe-
We can begin by explicating the fundamental postulation of discourse theory in
rent and justifiable. Thereby doing what with a bit of irony can be called very human
relation to the novel, which is that the students at Hailsham are interpellated into a
indeed. As our project does not have a narratological focus we will not delve deeper
subject-position by the clone-institutions which hegemonically organize their
into this issue, as we are only interested in how the effects of NLMG’s narrative
consent to the fate they have been predestined for by society. It is now logical that
we should proceed by looking for evidence – in the material we do have – for this in-
7
terpellation, and the inherent measures the clone-discourse takes to preclude other
The term “reliable unreliable narration” is utilized by Adam Parkes in his writings on Ishiguro.
13
14
more ‘humane’ discourses from entering into an antagonistic relationship with it,
fashion, the young students relatively unfazed internalize this view of them despite
thus preventing a possible ‘humanization’ of the clones. Thereafter we will invest-
their initial exasperation (Ishiguro, 36). However, this is not just due to Madame’s
igate how the clone-discourse manifests itself through the main characters of the
fear of them. As mentioned in 2.2.3., we lack knowledge of many of the practices
novel and their ability to not only identify with the clone-discourse, but also to fulfill
and articulations that interpellate them into this submissive subject-position, but we
its requirements. Concurrently, we will also be detailing how the nodal point
do have Tommy’s theory of indoctrination as an indication that the students are
"student” is filled with meaning relationally by its surrounding moments and the
continually forced to succumb to this self-understanding:
resulting exclusion of other signs (P&J, 47).
“Tommy thought it possible that the guardians had, throughout all our years at
3.0.1. The Interpellation of the Students
Hailsham, timed very carefully and deliberately everything they told us, so that we
As we have described, interpellation is in Laclau & Mouffe’s terminology the process
were always just too young to understand properly the latest piece of information.
by which a subject is called on to act in a certain role, and if successful, can result in
But of course we’d take it in at some level, so that before long all this stuff was
the interpellated’s identification with a subject position in a discursive structure
there in our heads without us ever having examined it properly.” (Ishiguro, 82)
(P&J, 43). The first time it is evident in the chronology of the novel that the clones
Throughout their childhood, the students have been “told and not told” (Ishiguro,
are interpellated, is the important “recognition scene” (Puchner, 38) wherein an 8
82) by their guardians, thereby slowly sedimenting the clone-discourse and its
year old Kathy and her friends who have always sensed that they were different,
embedded outlook on life into the minds of the students (discourse, we must
decide to swarm Madame, who has shied away from the students’ close proximity,
remember is practically equivalent to ideology as per Laclau & Mouffe (P&J, 18)). As
in order to test Ruth’s theory that Madame is afraid of them. The result is profound,
such, it is no surprise that most of the students react with indifference to Miss
as they for the first time are interpellated, recognized, as truly different from
Lucy’s outbursts at the pavilion (see 4.2.1.), which could otherwise be expected to
‘normal’ humans, as Kathy details in retrospect:
be a major and shocking revelation to them (Ishiguro, 79-84). When they reach a
certain age, they begin to joke about donations and thus their fate in the same
“[…] I can still see it now, the shudder she seemed to be suppressing, the real dread
that one of us would accidentally brush against her. […] Ruth had been right:
absurd manner we absurdly joke about death; as a coping mechanism to deal with
Madame was afraid of us. But she was afraid of us in the same way someone might
something unavoidable (Ishiguro, 84-88). Overall, the students are too fragile and
be afraid of spiders. We hadn’t been ready for that. It had never occurred to us to
isolated – and first and foremost as children reliant upon the institution that
wonder how we would feel, being seen like that, being the spiders.” (Ishiguro, 35)
interpellates them – to avoid the grasp of the clone-discourse. There is no question
Lacking the defense mechanism to combat such revelations, as even their beloved
surrogate parents, the guardians, are a part of the system that regard them in such
that it is Hailsham and its guardians that hold the power, and as Laclau & Mouffe
believe, “it is power that creates our knowledge, our identities and how we relate to
one another as groups or individuals” (P&J, 37).
15
16
3.0.2. The Hegemonic Denial of Antagonisms
which resembles that of slave and master in the old Southern USA. What is inter-
When the project began, we were working with a hypothesis that resembled the
esting to note is Laclau and Mouffe’s assertion that there are no objective groups,
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, arguing that lack of access to other discourses was what
groups are not socially predetermined until they exist in discourse (P&J, 45), which
kept the clones imprisoned in the clone-discourse, unable to articulate or even think
fits the idea that the clones might not actually be clones per se. There is nothing ex-
a thought that expressed a desire to escape. But upon a closer inspection of the
plicit that differentiate them from ‘normal’ people besides the inability to give birth
book, we realized that the students have ready access through several mediums to a
which could easily be the result of postpartum surgery8, meaning that they could be
number of seemingly antagonistic discourses (see 1.). However, it also became
‘normal’ orphans. This theory gives prominence to Laclau & Mouffe’s understanding
evident that it was not access to competing discourses that the students were
of discourse as material in that interpretation of physical objects is “always
denied, but rather the relevance of them.
mediated by systems of meaning in the form of discourses” (P&J, 35).
This denial of antagonisms is realized by several means, some in all probability
The ascription of meaning which constitutes the group formation whereby the
unmentioned (see 2.2.3.). First of those we can identify is the fact that the guardians
clones comes to be identified as clones, happens through a reduction of possibilities
continually emphasize the differences between clones and ‘normal’ humans,
wherein one part – a perceived trait – come to represent the whole (P&J, 40-44).
amongst other by disparaging or outright banning smoking and clone-human sex
Here, the group formation nullifies the clones’ possibility to identify themselves as
(Ishiguro, respectively 67-68 & 83-84). This is often done by addressing the clones as
something other than clones (women, men, whites, blacks) across the clone-human
if their fate is a necessary fact, and not a contingent creation (see chapter 4.).
divide. It is important to note that we are not arguing against the Laclau & Mouffe’s
Furthermore, they are taught a class called Culture Briefing (Ishiguro, 110), wherein
fundamental understanding of the subject as fragmented and overdetermined by
they role play the different jobs found in the outside world; explicitly so they can
the several interchangeable identities at its disposal (P&J, 43). Certainly, the clones
gain an understanding of the way the ‘outside’ functions, but arguable implicitly
can change their immediately held subject-position (evident in the donor-carer
because it underlines that all human beings have roles, theirs is just special, as Miss
relationships), but they cannot rid themselves of the qualifier clone – e.g. they can
Lucy at one point notes (Ishiguro, 68). We do concede that these articulations alone
view themselves as clone women, but not just women. What is excluded is the pos-
are insufficient evidence, but this is yet another matter in NLMG where an invisible
sibility of social antagonisms, which occur when separate fragments of a subject’s
or obscure cause has very clear effects (see 3.1.).
identity mutually preclude each other (P&J, 47) In other words, the clones can and
What is at play here is the logic of equivalence (P&J, 44-45), whereby all the clones
come to be subsumed into this category regardless of gender and race etc. thereby
do employ the more abstract discourses such as the discourse of men and its
opposite women, but always so in a subordinate role to the clone-discourse.
situated in polar opposition with the category of humans, resulting in a construct
8
17
The possibility of biologic altering is too speculative and therefore not addressed.
18
This apparent inability to transcend the clone-human distinction is the result of a
are perceived by them as opportunities to understand, not become, humans; similar
successful hegemonic intervention, which is when an articulation or unison of
to how a black slave in the 18th century might have been able to gain an
articulations by means of force attempts to fixate moments to a degree at which
understanding of a white man’s discourse, but find it completely inapplicable to her
they are closed enough to constitute unambiguity and naturalization (P&J, 48). In
own life. The strength of the hegemony controlling the consenting clones can be
this instance the clone-discourse succeeds in sedimenting and ‘objectifying’ the clo-
asserted by noting the often mentioned lack of the stereotypical dystopian machi-
ne-human division while concomitantly placing it in a dominant all-pervasive
nations and devices (see 1.). This is in effect a prison without locks or walls, as
position in the order of discourse. The order of discourse generally denotes “[…] a
Puchner notes in non-discourse terms:
social space in which different discourses partly cover the same terrain which they
compete to fill with meaning each in their own particular way” (P&J, 56). The other
“The power of indoctrination is confirmed through the absence of external
enforcement mechanisms; no patrols or police forces are mentioned anywhere in
fragments of the clones’ identities have as such become ancillary to their identity as
the novel. There is [a] fence around Hailsham, but it does not seem to make escape
clones. Jørgensen and Philips provide a non-fictive example in the struggle between
from the school impossible or even difficult.” (Puchner, 39-40)
national and class identities in the lead-up to the First World War (P&J, 48). The
struggle centered on whether or not the working class should cooperate across
3.1. The Characters in Relation to the Clone-Discourse
national borders, and was decisively ended when the war broke out and workers
In the previous subchapter we conceded that the accessible articulations isolated,
came to identify themselves as e.g. either English or German workers.
was insubstantial evidence to base our theory of the denial of antagonisms on.
However, we also noted that this was an example wherein one can deduct the cause
Perhaps the most eloquent way to enunciate the momentous make of the clonehuman division is to compare it with the division of humanity into two separate
genders. For in the fictive world of NLMG, clone-discourse has succeeded in
constitution a binary categorization just as natural and self-evident to the clones as
the categorization of the genders is to us in the ‘real’ world. We can put the
challenge the clones face into perspective by remarking how it is only recently in
modern history that the gender construct has been questioned and challenged
publicly by homosexuals and transgenders. At last, we can now substantiate our
claim in the beginning of the subchapter that the clones are not denied access to
antagonistic discourses, but the relevance of these: What we as outsiders perceive
from the effect. The effects being the main characters of the novel, all constituted
and thus determined by the clone-discourse and their ability to live up to it. What
follows is subsequently an account of these main characters and their most pertinent actions in relation to the clone-discourse, and not oversimplified characterization and character analysis. In strong continuation of the last sub-chapter, we will
begin with the mainly observant Kathy, whose actions exemplify the strength of the
hegemony. Not just in capacity as the narrator of the novel, but also because she
more so than Ruth and Tommy resembles the prototypical student. We will then detail these two while simultaneously introducing Laclau’s version of Lacan and accounting for the structured meaning surrounding the master signifier ‘student’.
as numerous opportunities for the clones to partake in more ‘humane’ discourses,
19
20
3.1.1. Kathy’s Curiosity & Reclusion
resulted in a meaningless conversation with a ‘normal’ gallery owner, reveal why
The main trait that exempts Kathy from being categorized as a typical clone and
this is: “[...] Art students, that's what she thought we were. Do you think she'd have
renders her interesting as a character separate from her narrator role, is the
talked to us like that if she'd known what we really were?” (Ishiguro, 166). Ruth goes
pervasive curiosity she displays while at Hailsham. This curiosity is what in many
on, again unchallenged, to say that their possibles – the ‘normal’ persons they are
ways catalyzes the first part of the narrative as she and Tommy attempt to ascertain
clones of – are society’s scum: “We all know it. We’re modeled from trash. Junkies,
how and to what purpose the different moments in the clone-discourse interrelate.
prostitutes, winos, tramps.” (Ishiguro, 166). A belief Kathy secretly shares as she in
In particular, what it is that makes the creativity and art of the students as important
an effort to explain her sexual drive (unaccounted for by clone-discourse), searches
as it is: Not only is the entire internal economics of Hailsham based on the quality of
through pornographic magazines looking for her own picture (Ishiguro, 185).
the students’ art (Ishiguro, 16), but it is also considered an honor to have your art
taken away by Madame to the mysterious gallery (Ishiguro, 30-32). Yet, the reasons
for this distinct emphasis on art is shadily defined and explained by the Hailsham
guardians (see 4.). However, while Kathy questions the internal workings of the
clone-discourse, there is a marked absence of curiosity pertaining to the clones’
gruesome fate, as she never explicitly poses meta-questions about the justice of the
clone-discourse’s existence (see 3.3.).
3.1.2. Tommy’s Rage
The bullying of Kathy’s eventual love Tommy during the middle part of the Hailsham
years preoccupies much of Kathy’s attention in the first part of the novel as it is
directly tied to the previously mentioned importance of art. There is not much
doubt that Tommy’s lack of artistic skill is the underlying cause of the bullying, as
Kathy’s group of friends rationalize as they are witnessing yet another cruel prank
played at Tommy’s expense: “[…] everybody was talking at once, about how Tommy
This is a testament to the strength of the clone-discourse’s hegemonic grasp on the
never even tried to be creative, about how he hadn’t even put anything in for the
students and the internalization of the view of clones as sub-humans. Not only is
Spring Exchange.” (Ishiguro, 10). The fatal nature of this deficiency of creativity is
Kathy’s curiosity arrested to the bounds she can conceive, but she is even in her
underlined by the fact that it is the only thing ‘wrong’ with Tommy, who is never
carer years defined more by reclusion than curiosity. The evidence of this is com-
described as having any of the properties or traits normally associated with bullying:
posed of the lack of evidence to the contrary: Besides the Norfolk trip (see 3.2.3.),
He is even an excellent athlete and strong enough to rule out attempts of actual
Kathy never mentions any contact with ‘normal’ humans who doesn’t have a func-
physical bullying (Ishiguro, 15). To understand why this results in the vicious
tion in the clone-discourse (guardians, doctors etc.) and she keeps to small rarely
victimization of Tommy, we need to introduce a few terms pertaining to identity.
traveled roads when she drives from donor to donor (Ishiguro, 272-273). She even
mentions that she only allows herself her sole guilty pleasure, strolling around supermarkets, because the “assistants don’t mind at all” (Ishiguro, 157). Ruth’s
A master signifier is the prevalent subject-position in a given discourse that organizes identity (P&J, 42). This organization happens through a chain of equivalence
wherein signs are structured in chains opposite other chains which resultantly
unchallenged outburst of anger, after the failed search for her possible (see 3.3.2.)
21
22
“define how the subject is, and how it is not.” (P&J, 43) Subject-positions are thus
gradually lost as it ages, and assert that the individual subconsciously strive to retain
infused with meaning by the pinpointing of signs, most often in the form of traits,
this feeling of completeness once again (P&J, 42). When it becomes subject to
the possession of which are associated with inhabiting the relevant subject-position
socialization and interpellation, it internalizes the image of itself and attempts in its
(P&J, 43). In this manner a master signifier is what Laclau and Mouffe call a nodal
chase of wholeness to align itself with the provided identity. However, the subject is
point, a privileged sign around which a discourse is organized, but whose meaning
essentially split, incapable of achieving the sought wholeness. As such, one’s identity
subsequentially is highly reliant on this context (in this sense, most nodal points are
is both “[…] the basis of identification and of alienation.” (P&J, 42). It is this quest for
floating signifiers). We can now conclude that in NLMG, the discursive construction
“completeness” that drives the individual’s investment in discourses and provides us
of the identity ‘student’ is constituted through a chain of equivalence wherein the
with the possibility of rejecting or reinvesting in them.
9
sign ‘art’ occupies a predominant position (other prominent signs being sex and
health), thereby pinpointing your identity as a student to be dependent upon your
proficiency in producing quality art. Tommy’s inability to do so implies an otherness
that unsettles the other students and challenges their self-perceptions when Miss
Geraldine out of pity praises one of Tommy’s lackluster works in what turns out to
be the starting point of his torment (Ishiguro, 20). However, as Ruth notes, it is not
just Tommy’s inability to produce art that entice the bullying: “I suppose it is a bit
cruel […] the way they always work him up like that. But it’s his own fault. If he
learnt to keep his cool, they’d leave him alone.” (Ishiguro, 10).
Tommy’s seemingly nonsensical rage is thus the only outlet of a young boy incapable of adequately identifying himself with the discourse that has an inescapable
hold on him. Unfortunately, his rage only further increases his otherness to the other students, enticing them to bully him as it consequentially reaffirms their
identities. As such Tommy is caught in a vicious circle, as the rejection inherent in
the others’ bullying further accentuates his inability to identify himself as a student.
Tellingly, his rage, and resultantly the bullying, first disappears when Miss Lucy
removes the necessity of art in his student-identity (see 4.2.) at a time that coincide
with a shift of emphasis from ‘art’ to ‘sex’ in the chain of equivalence: “In a way, sex
What Ruth refers to is his tendency to throw epic tantrums of rage whenever expos-
had got like “being creative” had been a few years earlier. It felt like if you hadn’t
ed to the bullying (Ishiguro, 14-15). The existence of this temper can be recounted
done it yet, you ought to, and quickly.” (Ishiguro, 97-98).
for by Laclau’s incorporation of Lacan’s psychoanalysis into discourse theory (see
2.1.1.). Thus Laclau provides an unconsciousness that catalyzes the subjectivation of
the individual by the interpellating discourses and demarcates the subject as a “[…]
perpetually incomplete structure which constantly strives to become a whole.” (P&J,
42). Lacan’s theory builds on the symbiosis experienced by the infant that is
3.1.3. Ruth’s Aspiration
The character of Ruth in many ways exemplifies Lacan’s quest for wholeness as she
perceptually strive to be the ‘perfect’ student (and later clone). This aspiration
primary takes the form of continual assertions of her importance and authority. This
pattern can be traced from Kathy’s earliest memory of Ruth wherein she under strict
supervision plays with Ruth’s imaginary horses (Ishiguro, 45-57), to Ruth and an in-
9
Understood here as both creativity and the production of art.
23
24
nocuous Tommy’s imitations of the veterans’ mannerisms at the Cottages (Ishiguro,
3.2. The Students’ Agency: The Desire for Something Else
120-122), which are incidentally already imitations (see 3.2.). Of particular interest is
It is evident throughout the book that the clones desire another fate than the one
the group of secret guards created by a young Ruth to protect her favorite guardian
society has predestined. This is marked in several ways, some subtle such as the
Miss Geraldine from abduction by a perceived conspiracy involving ever-changing
clones’ imitating the mannerisms they see on television at the Cottages (Ishiguro,
prospects (Ishiguro, 49-52). As the leader of the group, Ruth through insinuations
120-122), while others are blatant like the fascination of The Great Escape (Ishiguro,
claims a privileged position amongst the students, going as far as to kick out her
99). What the hints have in common is that they are just hints. Not once is the clo-
supposed best friend Kathy for questioning her (Ishiguro, 54). Ruth furthermore
ne-discourse directly questioned. The only occurrence that comes close, is when the
untruthfully imply that Miss Geraldine against the rules has gifted her a pencil case,
student Marge ask Miss Lucy if she has ever smoked, and it results in resolute
a ploy with Kathy sees through, but eventually support given the Ruth’s defeated
punishment by her fellow students (Ishiguro, 68-89). Even when they have had their
reaction to Kathy’s revelation that she knows the truth (Ishiguro, 60, 61-64).
hopes of a deferral squashed, neither Kathy nor Tommy, who has just gone off on a
This aspiration to be something ‘more’ could be seen as a step in the right direction
raving tantrum reminiscent of those from his childhood, can articulate their despair:
towards rebellion; however, it is limited to the confines of the clone-discourse.
““I was thinking,” I said, “about back then, at Hailsham, when you used to go
There is no quest for upwards mobility, only the illusion of privilege. This is evident
bonkers like that, and we couldn’t understand it. We couldn’t understand how you
in her reaction to the failed search for her ‘possible’ (see 3.2.1.). As soon as Ruth
could ever get like that. […] I was thinking maybe the reason you used to get like
finds no justification within the clone-discourse (conjured up or not), she resign
that was because at some level you always knew”” (Ishiguro, 275)
herself to her ultimate fate, satisfied in only asserting privilege within the discourse
thanks to the myth of Hailsham (see 4.). We can establish this by looking at her response to Tommy’s theory about deferrals (see 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.), which is dominated by a fear of ridicule of the uncreative Tommy and thus her, rather than a desire to avoid the donations (Ishiguro, 194). In fact, Ruth’s relationship with Tommy
seems to be a calculated means towards an end rather than based on genuine
affection. Not only was her interest in him also was not initiated until after the importance of art faded, but she even fails to empathize with his hardship at Hailsham
in retrospective, choosing the clone-discourse over him (Ishiguro, 15-16). At the end
of her life, a defeated Ruth is marked by fatigue, unable to conjure up any resistance
The way Marge is punished is pertinent to the clones’ incapability to articulate their
feelings, as she is forced to look at the woods surrounding Hailsham (Ishiguro, 51).
These woods have a strong grasp on the students’ imaginations, as unquelled legends of the horrifying fates of those that dared to wander into them (Ishiguro, 50).
Especially the story of a girl who ventures off and is thus not allowed in when she
returns, elucidates the confines the woods impose both physically and mentally, as
they represent the fear of displacement and alienation from Hailsham, its
incumbent clone-discourse, and thus the “completeness” of their identities. It is this
fear that, conjugated with the sedimented hegemony’s denial of antagonisms, instigates the clones’ incapability, or perhaps unwillingness, to question the discourse.
other than the vague hope that Tommy and Kathy can get a deferral (Ishiguro, 233).
25
26
3.2.1. The Notion of Possibles
Kathy’s when she in anger declares that they are modeled after scum (Ishiguro,
Nevertheless, this does not mean that the clones do not dream of an ‘ordinary’ life,
166). As such, this is one of many disagreements amongst the three protagonists.
nor shy away from making these dreams known to their friends. However, they do
However, some of these fights are separate from ordinary squabbles in that one of
so in a fashion similar to how a child may fantasize about defying reality to become
them is hurt in a jarringly disproportionate manner by his or hers closest (Robbins
a superhero (Ishiguro, 142-143), as evidenced by the fact that whenever these
2007). These moments of cruelty occur at poignant moments in the novel seem at
‘childish’ discussions occur, the elder clones at the Cottages (“veterans” as they are
first glance arbitrary. Consider e.g. the argument between Ruth and Tommy, which
called) leave the room with a mixture of slight contempt and imperiousness. The
Kathy inadvertently joins, as Ruth wrongly claims that Tommy’s peculiar drawings
clones’ interest in the notion of ‘possibles’ can be seen in extension of these
for Madame (see 3.2.3.) are stupid and that Kathy shares her opinion: “Something in
dreams, as they are essentially grasping at straws, seeking some sort of justification,
me just gave up. A voice went “All right, let him think the absolute worst. Let him
however weak and theoretical it may be, for the belief that another fate than that of
think it, let him think it.”” (Ishiguro, 195). Kathy leaves without defending Tommy,
“donor” await them. The essentialistic idea that your possible’s life can determine
effectively sucker punching him. This is one of the more baffling scenes in a novel
yours shows a clear inclination among the clones to search for a road out of the
full of them and can thus be interpreted in many ways (Robbins, 300). The same can
clone-discourse (Ishiguro, 140). As such the topic of possibles is slightly taboo, as it is
be said about Kathy and Tommy’s attack on Ruth at the end of their reunion. Kathy,
implicitly questions the clone-discourse (Ishiguro, 139). Ruth in particular is
the only one still a carer, takes the two others to see a stranded boat at Ruth’s
interesting in relation to the notion of possibles.
initiative (Ishiguro, 216). They are on the way back from the trip which was marked
She pegs her dream of becoming an office worker upon the reported sighting of her
by hesitancy and awkwardness, when Kathy pulls over to look at a billboard.
possible (Ishiguro, 140-141), displaying poorly hidden disappointment when the
The billboard’s advert is reminiscent of Ruth’s dream job (Ishiguro, 229). Again un-
proposed trip to Norfolk to investigate further is at risk of being cancelled (Ishiguro,
able to adequately explain her actions, Kathy launches into an attack on a physically
146-147). When this sighting turns out to have been wrong, Ruth’s reaction is strong
weak Ruth in concert with Tommy, dismantling Ruth for not having pursued her
(see the quote in 3.1.1.) and effectually reverses the notion of possibles from some-
dream with more effort after the unsuccessful trip to Norfolk (Ishiguro, 229-231).
thing that gives hope to something that further sediments the clone-discourse while
From the perspective of discourse theory, it is both clear-cut and enticing to regard
locking Ruth’s aspiration within the confines of the clone-discourse (see 3.1.3.).
the respective dismantlings of Tommy and Ruth as manifestation of Kathy’s desire
for something else, as unconscious attempts of creating pioneers through a merger
3.2.2. The Moments of Cruelty
The immediate fallout after they assert that the possible was not Ruth’s ‘original’ is
a disagreement between Ruth and Kathy, as Ruth unwittingly touches a bad nerve of
of Tommy’s rage and Ruth’s aspiration that can lead way out of the clone-discourse
through a mixture of indignation towards the discourse that defines them, and
aspiration to be something more than the ordinary (Robbins, 299).
27
28
3.2.3. The Recurring Rumor of Deferrals
3.3 Sub-Conclusion
We have already noted the great emphasis Hailsham puts on art and its subsequent
We have thus far provided a line of argument for how the construct of the clone-dis-
position as the most prominent sign in the chain of equivalence associated with the
course ingeniously precludes autonomous rebellion on the part of the students
master signifier ‘student’ (see 3.1.1. and 3.1.2.). Likewise, we mentioned how this
while concurrently finding correlations between Laclau & Mouffe’s definition of the
emphasis was poorly explained by the Hailsham guardians. A parallel situation arise
human subject and the subjects present in NLMG. The key to the ‘success’ of the
when the emphasis in the chain shift from ‘art’ to ‘sex’, as the exact reasons for the
clone-discourse, is the seemingly paradoxical fact that nothing decisive, for better or
emphasis on sex is obfuscated to the students (Ishiguro, 95-97). While this emphasis
worse, is concealed for the clones. We can best highlight this with The Island. In the
on sex most likely has a more innocuous reasoning behind it – that sex and love are
movie, the present hegemony is first challenged by the hero when he stumbles upon
integral to a ‘meaningful’ life – than the emphasis on ‘art’ (see 4.1.), the fact that
an organ removal from one of his fellow clones who were supposedly headed for
neither of these quintessential signs in the clone-discourse are fully fixated in the
the fabled paradise island. This articulation had the power to break the hold of the
structured meaning is of importance: The unclosed nature of the signs allows
hegemony on a clone that did not even know he was a clone. The very opposite is
ambiguity and results in what is perhaps the best example of not only the clones’
the case here; the students are reared as subordinate creatures always aware of
desire for something else, but also the extent of their agency. But before we can
their predestined fate. There is no articulation to stumble upon, as they are even
explain why, we must detail the recurring rumor of deferrals:
expected to partake in fellow clones’ institutionalized donations, Kathy even takes
pride in the fact that none of her donors ever became ‘agitated’ (Ishiguro, 1).
“I came to believe that this rumour, it’s not just a single rumour. What I mean is, I
think it’s one that gets created from scratch over and over. You go to the source,
We have furthermore argued that the clones have a small degree of agency, a minor
stamp it out, you’ll not stop it starting again elsewhere. I came to this conclusion
amount of maneuverability within the clone-discourse that allows them to articulate
and ceased to worry about it.” (Ishiguro, 258)
minor modifications to the clone-discourse, but not to reach beyond it. As such, any
The essence of the rumor is that if two clones are in love (Ishiguro, 252-255). What
possible rebellion is reliant upon an external force opening – or articulating – the
is interesting is that Tommy takes the rumor of deferrals and develops a theory
path to an antagonistic ‘humane’ discourse. However, given their non-distinct man-
centered on it and Miss Lucy’s retraction of her sentiment that art is not important
nerisms and reclusion from society, well exemplified by Kathy’s ignorance of the
(Ishiguro, 107-108) (see 4.), which rearticulates the importance of art and sex in
Morningdale scandal, the prospects for this external force are limited to the Guar-
accordance with his desire for another fate. This rearrangement of signs is the
dians. And since Hailsham is a humanitarian experiment to prove that students have
greatest display of agency on the clones part. However, in saying so we must note
souls, one could assume that these articulations are actually present in the novel.
the significance of the fact that even if Tommy’s theory was true, they would only
Part of what we will do in the next chapter, is to show that this is not the case.
get a deferral, not humanity. As such, they are still locked in the clone-discourse.
29
30
terminal diseases: “There was no way to reverse the process. How can you ask a
4. The Intents & Effects of Hailsham’s Guardians
world that has come to regard cancer as curable […] to go back to the dark days?”
4.1. The Purpose of Hailsham
(Ishiguro, 263). As Miss Emily explains, the incentive to keep the donations system
When planning to seek out Madame, what Tommy and Kathy are hoping for is the
previously discussed deferral on their donations. However, what they end up with is
completely different: the truth about the purpose of Hailsham. It quickly becomes
obvious that Hailsham in actuality was founded on a theory strikingly similar to ours;
the clones are humans degraded by dehumanizing treatment (Puchner, 38).
Therefore Hailsham was not only a facility for raising donors, but also a humanitarian experiment, an attempt to show that the clones partake in humanity, and are
was simply insurmountable. Especially in unison with the Morningdale scandal
(Ishiguro, 262), which brought the prospect of biologically altered superior clones to
the light of day. In the end, society chose to look the other way and the goal of Hailsham was defeated, leaving Miss Emily with only a small victory: “[…] And the memories, I suppose, of all of you. And the knowledge that we’ve given you better lives
than you would have had otherwise.” (Ishiguro, 265). However, Miss Emily fails to
see the problems associated with her gradual reform, problems we will now discuss.
not just “shadowy objects in test tubes” (Ishiguro, 261). Hailsham’s efforts to do so
are centered on art, reasoning that art bares the soul of the artist and can
4.2. Miss Lucy’s Moral Quarrel
Miss Lucy is one of the guardians at Hailsham, but unlike the rest of the guardians
resultantly prove whether or not the soul exists at all (Ishiguro, 254, 260):
she has problems conforming to Hailsham’s practices in raising the students. With
“[...] at the height of our influence, we were organising large events all around the
her knowledge that the students are only products serving normal humans, she
country. There’d be cabinet ministers, bishops, all sorts of famous people coming
finds it necessary to share that knowledge with the students, and not only limit
to attend. There were speeches, large funds pledged. “There, look!” we could say.
them to the information given to them by the staff in general at Hailsham. She is
“Look at this art! How dare you claim that these children are anything less than
frustrated by the students’ dreams and aspirations towards a normal life - in her
fully human?”” (Ishiguro, 262)
opinion they are best served with the whole truth instead of the bits and pieces they
Yet again we can draw parallels to slavery, for Hailsham’s purposes “[…] echo W.E.B.
are provided with by Miss Emily whose art strategy involve the students’ ignorance.
Du Bois’s declaration that “until the art of the black folk compels recognition they
The unintentional result of her articulations is a clarification of the division between
will not be rated as human.”” (Puchner, 37). As we have previously argued, the
clones and humans. She is doing that through different situations at Hailsham. After
clones’ escape from their fate is dependent upon external forces. And as it appears
Hailsham, the students are unconsciously continuing the division.
from the above quote, Hailsham was initially rather successful in their mission.
People believed in their cause and supported it. However, at the time where people
started to care about the welfare of the clones, the mechanisms of donations and
their benefits were already in place – people would live through what used to be
31
Miss Lucy’s agenda is to clarify to the students exactly what is going to happen to
them, she even compares Hailsham indirectly with the prison camps of World War
Two (Ishiguro, 78). However, If she also intends to make them rebel, she fails. The
32
problem is that by her approach, she keeps them locked in the discourse by not
The Speech at the Pavilion
giving them any authorities or agents to blame. One day Miss Lucy has stopped
The students are waiting out a spell of rain at the sports pavilion by daydreaming
working at Hailsham without any explanation (Ishiguro, 110-111). It’s not until years
about other lives (see 3.2.1.), when Miss Lucy abruptly interrupts. She explains that
later that they are told that Miss Lucy didn’t fit in and had to quit her job, as we later
her reason for stopping them is that they deserve to know 'the truth' about their
learn Miss Emily felt she was posing a risk to the dominant discourse (see 4.3.). In
purpose. Unfortunately, Miss Lucy’s wording contradicts her intent:
the beginning she challenges the discourse because she fails to see the reason to be
“Your lives are set out for you. You'll become adults, then before you're old, before
creative when the students are all just completing anyway - later she sees the bigger
you're even middle-aged, you'll start to donate your vital organs. That's what each
picture, how important it is to be creative in order to show the outside world that
of you was created to do. You're not like the actors you watch on your videos,
the clones are ‘normal’ humans. Through Kathy and Tommy’s eyes, it is unclear
you're not even like me. You were brought into this world for a purpose, and your
what Miss Lucy’s intentions are when she changes her mind (Ishiguro, 109).
future, all of them, have been decided.” (Ishiguro, 81)
4.2.1. The Adverse Effects of Miss Lucy’s Articulations
In this recap of the clones’ fate, the authority who has decided and legalized
We will now substantiate what we have proposed in the previous sub-chapter.
cloningis never shown in her use of language – it is deleted, masked, hence leaving
However, in order for us to properly work through these articulations, we need to
the monologue void of any information regarding the authorities and power-
apply additional theory, specifically that of Roger Fowler (see 2.2.2.).Transitivity is a
structures of outside world. This deletion of agency means that no agent
“term for the kinds of processes that occur in clauses (Fowler, 69).” We will be
deliberately performs decisive actions, thereby giving a contingent truth the
looking into how certain sentences are constructed, utilizing the point that
appearance of a necessary truth. Miss Lucy's use of the auxiliary modal verb “will”
“different choices of transitivity structure in clauses will add up to different world
(in a contracted state, 'll) underlines this because of the power this verb posses it is
views (Fowler, 70)” in our search for the exact results of these articulations. As you
certain that their future will be as described– this is not something that is up for
will soon find out, one of these results is the deletion of agents. Deletion, as the
discussion, there is no doubt on this subject: The students will become adults and
10
name implies, means the removal of “[…] both agency and modality , thus making
they will start to donate their vital organs. The last part of the quote is particularly
mysterious the participants, obligations and responsibilities often spoken of by the
interesting, as Miss Lucy’s wording draws a very clear line between 'normal' humans
discourse (Fowler, 71)”, and can be achieved through the careful use of
and clones. As such, the lack of transivity in the articulation results in an effect
sociolinguistic constructions such as nominalization and passive.
adverse to the Miss Lucy’s intent. As a result of her failure to explicate the agency
involved in the student’s fate, the students, incapable of conjuring critical questions
(see 3.2.), perceive it as a reaffirmation of the clone-discourse instead of the
10
"The term 'modality' subsumes a range of devices that indicate speaker's attitudes to the
propositions they utter, and to some degree to their addressees" (Fowler, 72).
33
challenge to the authority and authenticity of the clone-discourse it is intended as.
34
The Talk on Cigarettes
Miss Lucy’s flaw is that she addresses the students, and expects them to react in, a
Another example of Miss Lucy’s failure to instigate an antagonistic relationship
traditional human manner. She thereby underestimates, perhaps out of ignorance,
between the clone-discourse and a ‘human’ discourse is the aforementioned talk on
the power the clone-discourse holds over the students. As Kathy surmises: “It
cigarettes that result in Marge’s punishment. Normal teenagers would be curious
unnerved us to see them change like that. I think that’s why we never asked that
about smoking which is everywhere in movies, picture, literature etc. but that’s not
one further question, and why we punished Marge K. so cruelly for bringing it all up
the case for the students. To understand why, we need to discuss the smoking policy
that day after the rounders match.” (Ishiguro, 69). While Miss Lucy may accidentally
at Hailsham. Due to clones’ singular purpose and the health risks associated with
delete the agency of society, it is decisive when seen in conjunction with the fact
smoking, the guardians enforce a strict policy of censorship pertaining to smoking:
that the agency of the students has already been fatally arrested.
Pages in books are missing and when smoking is described in literature or art, the
guardians tells them how bad it is for your body when you smoke (Ishiguro, 67).
4.3. The Meeting With Madame & Miss Emily
From the very beginning of their existence, there has been one single word to which
As a consequence, the topic of smoking is taboo amongst the students, who are
afraid of disappointing the guardians (and thus their identity) (Ishiguro, 63). In this
the clones tie their identity, one word that captures the meaning of their existence –
students. For a Hailsham student, that word means a lot more than we can even
relation, and given the students’ inability to ask critical questions, Marge’s question
begin to imagine. Throughout their entire stay at Hailsham, the clones have been
if Miss Lucy has ever smoked is an opportunity for Miss Lucy to transfer her internal
taught what a student is, how a student should behave, and what a student is not –
antagonism to the student. After having admitted to smoke for a short duration, she
human, guardian and so forth. This interpellation has led the students to identify
once again fails to enunciate her sentiments in an appropriate manner: “You’ve
themselves with this role and react when the word ‘student’ is uttered. When Kathy
been told about it. You’re students. You’re …special. So keeping yourselves well,
and Tommy seek out Madame and Miss Emily, they may have distanced themselves
keeping yourselves very healthy inside, that’s much more important for each of you
than it is for me.” (Ishiguro, 68-69). What transpires next is highly revelatory, as
there is a long awkward pause, in which Miss Lucy awaits more questions:
a bit from the term ‘student’, since they haven’t been at Hailsham for several years.
However, as soon as they start talking to Madame and their former guardian, they
are interpellated to the student role anew. The re-interpellation, as one might call it,
begins as soon as they are let in the house and Madame asks the students to sit:
“She stopped again and looked at us in a strange way. Afterwards, when we
discussed it, some of us were sure she was dying for someone to ask: “Why? Why is
“She reached out and put her hands on the backs of two matching armchairs just in
it so much worse for us?” But no one did. I’ve often thought about that that, and
front of her [...] When we turned to sit down, she was over by the windows, in
I’m sure now, in the light of what happened later, that we only needed to ask and
front of the heavy velvet curtains, holding us in a glare, like we were in class and
Miss Lucy would have told us all kinds of things. All it would have taken was just
she was a teacher.” (Ishiguro, 251)
one more question about smoking.” (Ishiguro, 69)
35
36
The result of the re-interpellation can already be seen here, as Kathy recognizes the
Emily even says about Madame’s efforts: “Marie-Claude has given everything for
situation and relates it to that of a student-teacher relationship. Talking about this
you. She has worked and worked and worked. Make no mistake about it, my child,
passage after they have left the house, Tommy comments that he “[…] thought she
Marie-Claude is on your side and will always be on your side.” (Ishiguro, 269)
11
was about to burst into song” . He, in a way, also felt like he was back at Hailsham.
As soon as Miss Emily appears and starts speaking, there is a change of pace in the
re-interpellation. Where Madame did not utter the word ‘students’ even once, Miss
Emily uses it almost compulsively.
This makes sense, but when comparing the ending of this chapter to The Island, one
might be surprised that “giving everything” doesn’t include giving Kathy and Tommy
plane tickets to some far-off country, thus helping them escape their cruel destiny.
However, through the year-long interpellation of the students and thus the defining
Through the use of the word students, Miss Emily does not only interpellate Kathy
of what a student is, Miss Emily has also defined her own identity. She is no longer
and Tommy as such – she also defines her own identity as something else, the guar-
Emily, the woman – she is Miss Emily, a guardian – both her name and her title are
dian. Hence a relationship of power has been established, with Miss Emily as the
important signifiers in the Hailsham discourse, signifiers deeply connected to those
teacher and Kathy and Tommy as the students, the ones who must learn from the
such as student, Hailsham and so forth. Hence, the discourse has not only entangled
teacher – a submissive position. This, in a way, strengthens the clone discourse,
the students, but Miss Emily and Madame as well. It seems highly probable that the
tightening its grip on Kathy and Tommy – had they hoped they could escape the im-
re-interpellation which was mentioned in the previous chapter is not something
prisonment of their discourse, sail away on a boat or get a deferral, that hope might
Miss Emily is doing deliberately, carefully planning what to say and how to say it –
by now start to diminish. The re-interpellation reminds them of who they are, and
just like it doesn’t seem probable that Madame tried to make Kathy and Tommy feel
for what reason they are what they are. This serves as a plausible explanation for
like they were back at Hailsham when she gestured towards the two chairs (Ishiguro,
why they do not react stronger to the refusal of the deferral-rumour – through their
251). Quite the contrary, one might suggest – discourse assigns the roles of student
conversation with Madame and Miss Emily, their interpellation has been reinforced
and guardian as soon as Kathy and Tommy make contact with Madame, and it
and the discursive ideology of Hailsham has been re-imprinted in them so strongly
constitutes the ideology of both the students and the guardians. Signifiers or
that they have already given up hope as they remember what they are: students.
ideologies related to escapist kind of thinking simply does not exist in the Hailsham
discourse, which they are all a part of – nor can it ever be, since this part of the
4.4. Miss Emily vs. Miss Lucy
Through the conversations at Madame and Miss Emily’s house, a topic which is
brought up a lot is that of how much fighting the former guardians have gone
through to secure as good a future for the students as possible. At one point, Miss
discourse is closed, not open for debate, clearly defined. This theory leads to
another interesting question regarding the production of art and the purpose of
Hailsham. If Miss Emily is indeed locked in Hailsham discourse, how can she teach
the students to produce art that proves their humanity? How can she expect a
student to paint a picture symbolizing a longing for freedom, write a poem about
37
38
lifelong love or an essay about conflicts in the third world? These examples are all
from ‘normal’ humans. Since that day, a great deal of their time has been spent
concepts which are not perceived to be relevant to the students and hence
figuring out what they really are, chasing possibles, chasing impossible deferrals
undefined in their discourse. The only one who could actually teach the students
etcetera. Maybe the students had a happy childhood, but a large part of their adult
about the meaning of these concepts are Miss Emily and her staff of guardians, but
life was spent catching up with misery, so to say. About the creating of art, Miss
how can they teach the students something which lies beyond the confines of their
Emily might again be right: had the students known their fate, they might not have
own ideology?
wanted to create art – on the other hand, had they had full access to human
This leads to a problem, concretely that if art bares the soul of the artist, it can only
be used as a medium to display concepts within the discourse of that soul – not
something that lies far beyond the confines of that discourse, meaning that the
discourse, their art might have been able to more properly reflect their world so
that ‘real’ humans could understand it, due to the fact that the addresser and the
addressee of the art would share a discourse.
students can never prove that they are one hundred percent human through art. A
However, the most interesting question is whether an upbringing and socialization
solution to this problem might be the ideology which was displayed by Miss Lucy. As
under the Hailsham that Miss Lucy envisioned would have paved the way for a clone
previously mentioned, she is a renegade within the guardian ranks, having a
rebellion. As previously mentioned, much of the spare time of the students was
different point of view on the upbringing and socialization of the students. When
spent looking for answers, speculating about dream futures and looking for
Tommy queries Miss Emily for a reason to why Miss Lucy suddenly disappeared, he
possibles. Having each done their own research, thought their own thoughts and
is prompted with a lengthy answer which addresses the issues of giving the students
spoken with their own closest friends, the conception of their history and reality
access to a complete human ideology while at Hailsham (Ishiguro, 267-268). Her
would be different from clone to clone. Thus, as we see it at the cottages, a lot of
argument against it is that the students would have had their happy memories of
their time is spent debating this outcome, fighting internally about who is most
their youth destroyed, and that they would not have produced art since it would
right, or whose theory is most probable. Now imagine a situation where the
have seemed meaningless, taking the plans for their future into consideration. Let us
students already knew about their fate from birth, about why they existed, who
theorize about these statements one at a time.
created them and so forth; not only would they have had much more time on their
Had Miss Lucy had their way, the students might not have had a happy childhood,
seeing as how they would have always known how their lives would turn out.
However, stating that the students had a happy childhood under Miss Emily might
be to exaggerate the facts a bit; in the episode where Ruth, Kathy and the other
students decide to swarm Madame (see 3.0.1.), they realize that they are different
hands, but they would be able to exchange opinions based on facts! They would
have someone to blame for their existence, miserable upbringing and premature
death. That is the major difference between the two ideologies – with Miss Emily,
the students spend the majority of their time ‘chasing their own tail’, where with
Miss Lucy, the clones would have had common information about their existence,
thus a common oppressor to rise against.
39
40
5. Conclusion
As such, for the clones, there exists no oppressor, no identifiable enemy - through
We feel we have made a valid argument for the existence of a clone-discourse which
the interpellation of clone ideology, the clones realize that in their case, instead of
precludes rebellion on the part of the students. However, we most concede that this
good or bad, there exists only clone or not clone – and it is your position in these
does not entail that argument is sound per se. Through this report, we hope to have
categories that defines your reality. Working with this as a basis, our report and re-
made it clear that there is no ultimate answer to whether the discourse which
search has concluded that while there may be other factors precluding rebellion, it is
interpellates the students in NLMG precludes rebellion – however, it should be
very possible that through the interpellation of the ‘clone-discourse’, the students
equally clear that, should one decide to take this question into further consid-
come to realize that their fate is inevitable, that there is no way to escape – and that
eration, there are several interesting points which you might want to investigate.
this discourse has been so strongly sedimented in their personality that it excludes
any other discourses from entering an antagonizing relationship with it. Hence, even
One can definitely argue that there exists a certain ‘clone-discourse’, and that this
discourse is imposed on the students through interpellation at Hailsham – this can,
for example, be shown through our careful analysis of the articulations by the
though the students might read about slave rebellions, they would never be able to
identify themselves with slaves or other kinds of humans who have ever rebelled,
because the clones do not see themselves as humans –they are students!
guardians at Hailsham. Using this as a foundation for further argumentation, one
might venture into other considerations regarding this discourse: what constitutes
As such, inspiration from other rebellions would never really appeal to the students
it, how is it defined, how is it imposed on the students and what results does it
as a foundation of rebellion - they would never realize that they, too, can rebel.
yield? It would be hard to argue that the clone-discourse oppresses the students in
However, should a person choose to accept this viewpoint, his acceptance of the
a similar fashion that the slave drivers did to the African Americans in the 18th
answer might lead him to ask several other questions: If the students had been
century: even though the students are interpellated as ‘lesser beings’, they are still
interpellated with a different discourse, say, that of the clones in The Island, had
given vast amounts of freedom to explore the countryside, read books and watch
they then rebelled? Does one discourse lend itself better as a foundation of
movies. Hence, the oppression in Never Let Me Go differs in many ways from the
rebellion than the other, and if so, what is the best foundation of rebellion? Or one
oppressions the human race has witnessed through history – it is an oppression
might choose to go the opposite way and try and figure out which discourse renders
imposed on people who are more or less unaware of the fact that they are
their believers vulnerable to oppression – hence it is clear to us, that even though
oppressed, due to the way the oppressor operates. To the students, there are no
our research was not able to yield any indubitable facts or an ultimate answer to our
good or bad people – the people who oppress them are the same people that gave
cardinal question, it did enable us to provide an interesting viewpoint on an
them life, feed them and allow them to live. Being indoctrinated to the oppression
interesting novel: one that asks many questions and has even more answers, one
since birth by guardians, who also care for them and feed them, the students learn
that is well worth considering and one that will allow further research in many
to love and adore their oppressors.
different directions.
41
42
6. Appendix
6.3. Additional Requirements
6.1. Bibliography
6.3.1. Abstract
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
This report utilizes Laclau & Mouffe’s theory of discourse as literary theory in a
University Press, 2000.
‘reading’ of Kazuo Ishiguro’s 2005 novel Never Let Me Go, which details the lives of a
Fowler, Roger. "Power." In Handbook of Discourse Analysis vol. 4, by Teun A. (ed.)
group of young clones brought up in a boarding school environment for the purpose
of organ-harvesting and their fatalistic acceptance of their gruesome fate. We, by
van Dijk, 61-82. London: Academic Press, 1985.
way of Laclau & Mouffe, argue how the discourse which society interpellates the
Ishiguro, Kazou. NLMG. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. Abbreviated NLMG
clones with precludes autonomous rebellion. The clone-discourse, which identifies
The Island. Directed by Michael Bay. Produced by DreamWorks SKG. Performed by
the clones as sub-humans blessed by their singular purpose, does not succeed in its
Evan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Sean Bean and Djimon Hounsou. 2005.
hegemonic intervention by excluding the clones from access to antagonistic
discourses, but through continual articulations which denies the relevance of these
Philips, Louise, and Marianne W. Jørgensen. Discourse Analysis as Theory and
more ‘humane’ discourse to the clones, whose fate has thus become sedimented.
Method. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2002. Referenced as (P&J, #).
6.3.2. Summary in Danish
Puchner, Martin. "When We Were Clones." Raritan, Spring 2008: 34-49.
Denne projektrapport benytter Laclau & Mouffe’s diskursteori som en litterær teori I
The duck/hare picture is made available under the GNU Free Documentation
en ‘læsning’ af Kazuo Ishiguro’s roman fra 2005, Never Let Me Go, hvori vi følger en
License by Wikipedia.org.
gruppe unge kloners opvækst under kostskole-lignende forhold, skabt udelukkende
med det formål at donere deres organer. Vi undersøger hvordan de på fatalistisk vis
6.2. Dimension Anchoring
accepterer deres grusomme skæbne, og argumenter, gennem Laclau & Mouffe, for
As we conduct a literary analysis of Never Let Me Go through the employment of
hvorledes den diskurs som klonerne interpelleres med af samfundet forhindrer et
Laclau & Mouffe’s discourse theory as literary theory. We have not only been
autonomt oprør fra klonernes side. Denne klon-diskurs definerer klonerne som
reading substantial amounts of literary theories, but also limited ourselves to those
undermennesker, produkter med et ensidigt formål, og benægter derved relevansen
which we found most relevant, and then applied them – working with both research
af andre mere ’humane’ diskurser. Således opnår diskursen hegemoni over
and application within the field of literary theory. As such it is self-evident that we
klonernes liv, idet de velvilligt lader sig kontrollere, overbeviste om deres skæbnes
have anchored our project in the Text & Sign dimension.
uundgåelighed.
43
44
three-man group, we quickly adapted to the way each member worked. We started
6.3.3. The Two Year Progression Frame
1. Module
2. Module
3. Module
4. Module
Technique
Technique
Technique
Technique
setting up supervisor meetings on a weekly basis, worked out deadlines for written
work based on these meeting dates, and each group member was given a field in
which to do research. Together we decided on which theory would fit our novel
Method
Theory of Science
Method
Method
Method
better and started doing detailed reading on this theory. In our group meetings we
would discuss areas of the novel which would be interesting to analyze and before
Theory of Science Theory of Science Theory of Science
long, a table of contents was constructed. Having this as a foundation, we were able
Prof. Standards
Prof. Standards
Prof. Standards
Prof. Standards
to visualize the direction our project was going, how it was supposed to connect and
Quite fittingly the emphasis of any first semester project is to learn the techniques
so forth. From the moment this foundation was constructed we were able to start
associated with writing a semester long project. In our group, none of our initial
writing descriptions below each headline, slowly figuring out which headlines
group members had any concrete ideas about what writing a project really meant –
worked renamed and which had to be scrapped. Oftentimes, though, it first became
how long it would take, how many pages it would be, which dimensions it would
clear that some parts didn’t fit in after several pages of writing had been done. After
cover, how we were supposed to cover these dimensions when we barely knew
some time, we figured out how to ‘chop up’ old, unused writings and use them as
what they represented, and so on. However, we quickly learned that questions
brainstorms or foundations for new writings, something which helped us greatly.
pertaining to formal demands were answerable by our supervisor. What really
turned out to be problematic was how we were all used to work in different ways,
reacted different to criticism, each had different ideas about the professional
standard and the ways in which we should achieve this standard.
Entering the editing-phase, we were almost finished with all our writings. What was
left to be done, was to finalize each text. This was done by having each group member read the texts through carefully, then meeting up, projecting the text on a big
screen and working from one end to the other. Most of our time in the editing
In our initial 8-man group, we decided to split up into two sub-groups in order to re-
phase was spent doing this, finishing whatever writing was left and making sure that
search the same problem from two different angles, hoping to be able to combine
transitions between chapters were logically well-connected. Overall, this project has
these in a dialectic analysis. The splitting up into subgroups proved a problem
been through some turbulent times, the mid-term seminar probably being the most
though, because lots of time was spent catching up on what work the other sub-
turbulent. However, this was also where we split up, and we quickly found our way
group did, trying to reach an understanding of their research – something which ef-
back on the right path. Eventually we learned from the good and bad experiences,
fectively hamstrung the entire group, reducing the speed at which each sub-group
what to do and what not to do – and ended with a satisfactory project.
could progress. This, among other factors, led us to permanently split up into two
separate project-groups, something which we found to be a great success. In our
45
46
6.4. Terminology
donor organs for transplants. Kathy and her classmates have been created to be
Students: Clones from Hailsham.
donors, though the adult Kathy is temporarily working as a "carer," someone who
supports and comforts donors as they are made to give up their organs and,
Clones: Clones in general.
eventually, submit to death. As in Ishiguro’s other works, the truth of the matter is
Clone-discourse: The discourse they are interpellated with at Hailsham (and which is
made clear only gradually, via veiled but suggestive language and situations.
later modified).
The novel is divided in three parts, chronicling the three phases of the lives of its
Donor: A donor is a clone that is undergoing the process of donating his or her
main characters.
organs to ‘normal’ humans.
The first part is set at Hailsham, a boarding school where the children are brought
Carer: A carer is a clone that is taking care of all the practicalities for a donor, before
self becoming a donor.
up and educated. The teachers there mysteriously encourage the students to produce various forms of art. The best works are chosen by a woman known only as Madame and are said to be collected in a gallery. That Hailsham is not a normal school
Possible: A candidate for being the ‘original’ human the clone is copied after.
Completion: Is the term for a donor that has completed his or her donations and is
thus dead.
is also indicated by the emphasis on frequent medical checks and other odd details.
While the students of Hailsham are often cliquey, capricious and cruel, the three
Guardian: The teachers at Hailsham, which in many ways are surrogate-parents for
main characters - Ruth, Tommy, and Kathy - develop a stable friendship during this
time. Kathy herself seems to have resigned herself to being an observer of other
the clones.
people, and the choices they make, instead of making her own choices, seemingly a
Deferral: Postponement of the beginning of a clone’s donations.
naive and passive-aggressive type of "person". She often takes the role of the
peacemaker in the clique, especially between Tommy and Ruth. Tommy is an
isolated boy who has difficulty in relating to others and is often the target of bullies,
6.5 Wikipedia Summary of the Novel
while Ruth is an extrovert with strong opinions.
The summary is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.
In the second part, the characters, now young adults, move to the "Cottages",
“The novel describes the childhood of a Kathy H., a young woman of 31, focusing at
residential complexes where they start to have contacts with the external world and
first on her youth at an unusual boarding school and eventually, her adult life. The
they are relatively free to do what they want. A romantic relationship develops
story takes place in a dystopian Britain, in which human beings are cloned to provide
between Ruth and Tommy, while Kathy explores her sexuality but without forming
47
48
any stable connections. While at the Cottages, they travel to Norfolk. The third part
describes Tommy's and Ruth's becoming donors and Kathy's becoming a carer.
Kathy cares for Ruth and then, after Ruth "completes" (a euphemism for death),
Kathy takes care of Tommy. Before her death, Ruth expresses regret over coming
between Kathy and Tommy, and urges them to pursue a relationship with one and
to seek to defer their donations based on their love. Encouraged by Ruth's last
wishes, Kathy and Tommy visit Madame, where they also meet their old
headmistress, Miss Emily. During this visit, they learn why artistic production had
always been emphasized at Hailsham. The clones learn that Hailsham in general was
an experiment, an effort to improve the conditions for clones and perhaps alter the
attitudes of society, which prefers to view the clones merely as non-human sources
of organs. The novel ends, after the death of Tommy, on a note of resignation, as
Kathy accepts her own inevitable fate as a donor and her eventual "completion."
Although the novel does not end kindly, Ishiguro shows the reader the grim reality
of Kathy's life, and how ignorant acceptance can lead to downfall.”
Wikipedia. "Wikipedia." Never Let Me Go - Wikipedia, the free enclyclopedia. 11 24,
2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Let_Me_Go#Plot_summary (accessed 11
24, 2008).
49